Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description adds rich return context beyond annotations: key ownership/issuer, scopes, limits, last-used time, claim/active/expired/revoked statuses, and OAuth apps. It omits pagination and rate-limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that packs many relevant returned attributes without filler. The heavy use of dashes makes it slightly dense to scan, but every clause contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does a good job enumerating fields and statuses. It is complete enough for a read-only admin listing, though it could mention defaults, sorting, or pagination.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (user_id and include_inactive) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Describes a specific resource—AI connections to the workspace—and enumerates what is returned, including MCP keys and OAuth connected apps. It does not name or differentiate itself from sibling tools like ai_activity_log or list_ai_memory, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The parenthetical 'administrators' hints at an admin audience, but there is no direction on when this tool should be chosen over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.